The benefits of a manager change...

[DrungoHazewood]

Yeah, but we should be used to Trembley pulling players after multi-hit nights and sitting them on the bench. Perhaps he's afraid they'll be tired after all those swings the night before?

Yea, I'm sure that's happened 2-3 times this year out of a few hundred opportunities.

I guess your dream manager would have a hard-and-fast rule that anyone who has 2+ hits in a game plays tomorrow no matter what?

[JTrea81]

If the players are not unhappy with the current manager, changing managers could have the opposite effect. Nothing is going to make this team into a play offcontender this season. I doubt the drill sargent would be anything but counter effective.

Well the current manager isn't getting any results.

I don't care if the players are happy, I want them to perform. If they need somebody to kick their butts to do that, than that needs to be done.

I think the players are too comfortable with losing games. Trembley's message doesn't seem to be working so why not try another message?

The worst thing that happens is the players tank the season which is going to happen anyway. Might as well try something as Trembley isn't going to be back next year IMO...

[Big Mac]

Trembley wants Zaun to catch Tillman tonight, even though Wieters went 4-5 last night and is on a 5 game hitting streak and not to mention Wieters has worked with Tillman before. Just another reason Trembley has to go.

Stupid. You don't bench a guy after he goes 4-5, at least let him DH.

[Lurker Todd]

Scapegoating Trembley isn't going to me any more effective than scapegoating Mike Hargrove, or Ray Miller, or Sam Perlazzo, or anyone else. We've tried the whole "fire the manager" thing. It hasn't worked.

Everyone complains about the "inmates running the assylum" under Trembley. How is the team supposed to respect any manager when they know that after 18 months, that manager isn't going to be there. Roberts and Markakis don't have to listen to the manager because they know he isn't going to outlast them.

We were never going to contend this year. Stability, even in losing, may help turn this ship around.

[fansince71]

How about Colorado since they fired Clint Hurdle at 18-28. Jim Tracy has gone 36-18:eek:

[NewMarketSean]

How about Colorado since they fired Clint Hurdle at 18-28. Jim Tracy has gone 36-18:eek:

Man, if only I had used that example, people would have agreed with my thread!!!

[SilentJames]

How about Colorado since they fired Clint Hurdle at 18-28. Jim Tracy has gone 36-18:eek:

Colorado goes on a tear like that it seems virtually every year.

[NewMarketSean]

Colorado goes on a tear like that it seems virtually every year.

So it had nothing to do with the managerial change? What about the Astros in 2005... 48-26 under Phil Garner after going 44-44 under Jimy Williams.

[DrungoHazewood]

How about Colorado since they fired Clint Hurdle at 18-28. Jim Tracy has gone 36-18:eek:

That's a lot like 2007, when they were basically a .500 team under Clint Hurdle at 69-66, then they went on that crazy 20-7 streak after they fired Clint Hurdle and replaced him with Clint Hurdle.

[DrungoHazewood]

Surely it could have nothing to do with the managerial change.

I'm sure there is some short term cause and effect. But I have my doubts that there's anything beyond that.

I guess there's some logic to firing your mananger and replacing him with his polar opposite every few years just on principal. It kinda, sorta worked for the Yanks for a while.

[SilentJames]

So it had nothing to do with the managerial change? What about the Astros in 2005... 48-26 under Phil Garner after going 44-44 under Jimy Williams.

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. As Drungo just said the Rockies are a team that have gone on ridiculous streaks before in their very recent history - under Clint Hurdle.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

[Khaezh12]

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. As Drungo just said the Rockies are a team that have gone on ridiculous streaks before in their very recent history - under Clint Hurdle.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

I thought he was replaced by Clint Hurdle

[El Gordo]

That's a lot like 2007, when they were basically a .500 team under Clint Hurdle at 69-66, then they went on that crazy 20-7 streak after they fired Clint Hurdle and replaced him with Clint Hurdle.

If we could just figure out which Clint Hurdle is which, maybe we could replace DT with him.:laughlol:

[SilentJames]

Astros - team expected and built to contend for division title - goes .500 at the all-star break. THAT is justified.

Firing the manager of a team that was knowingly sacrificing wins this season in favor of development for contention in the future for not winning enough is not justified.

[NewMarketSean]

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. As Drungo just said the Rockies are a team that have gone on ridiculous streaks before in their very recent history - under Clint Hurdle.

Correlation does not necessarily equal causation.

It doesn't work for all teams, yes, but maybe it does work every now and then in the right situation. You just can't write it off so easily. I am not saying that changing the manager is 100% of the reason for improved play, but when it's the only variable involved in teams suddenly playing better, it can't simply be written off.

Anyway, it's up to AM to decide if it is the right situation. I just can't believe that for all the talk AM has made about avoiding another collapse that he would just let DT keep managing the team as the losses mount.